What follows below was written by a Justice Dept. Official who wishes to remain anonymous. He is a child pornography expert who was instrumental in getting Leon Garbowicz arrested.

"You can easily promote nudism without exploiting children by simply refusing to allow children to be photographed at nudist functions. Some nudists may be opposed to this, but it is better to err in favor of the children." -- Department of Justice Official

A pedophile uses seduction methodology to lead up to various types of sexual contact/exploitation. One step in this methodology is to desensitize juveniles to having their clothes removed, to be comfortable in a naked or nude state, and to be unashamed to be photographed/videotaped. Parents and guardians are inadvertently and unwittingly assisting the pedophile in his seduction techniques--resulting in bringing the pedophile one step closer to affecting the sexual contact/exploitation. The photography/videotaping of juveniles serves a second purpose for the pedophile. These materials stimulate and reinforce the pedophile's preference for children as sex objects/partners. In the worst case scenario, copies are made and distributed to the only other people interested in this material--other pedophiles. Case in point: U.S. Customs Service has seized 6 magazines entitled Jung und Frei (Young and Free), to be delivered to a Midwestern adult. I presume part of the philosophy of nudism involves the uninhibited, unclothed communing with nature; to engage in normal activities totally unfettered by clothing, etc. If one buys into this philosophy, it certainly follows: if it's good for the parents, it's good for children. So far, so good. Now, if you want to promote nudism, advertise facilities where nudists gather, etc., you may want to run ads. This would involve pictorial displays of adults. So far, so good. But why are children repeatedly depicted, as in Jung und Frei? You can easily promote nudism without exploiting children by simply refusing to allow children to be photographed at nudist functions. Some nudists may be opposed to this, but it is better to err in favor of the children. Consider the alternative in a worst case scenario: An American family (with juvenile children) visits a nudist colony in California. Photos are taken of adults and kids in the family in various activities. The parents assume these photos are remembrances of family activity, mementos of their vacation. Unbeknownst to the parents, only a couple of frames are taken of them--but many frames are taken of the children, some of which constitute seductive poses which were suggested by the photographer when the parents weren't around. (How is the child to discriminate the true, sexually exploitative nature of these poses? Or the situation, for that matter?) The parents are shocked to learn, months or years later, that photos of their kids have made their way to Europe, been commercially produced, and are re-distributed in publications like Jung und Frei. What started out as an innocent vacation turns into a nightmare that haunts the family for years. But the nightmare doesn't stop here with that family, because the photos of the nude children are used to sexually molest other children.

The official from the Department of Justice who put Leon Garbovitz away is the one who wrote this list printed below. I believe he was too lenient.--Nikki Craft

I have reviewed the magazines, and have noted the material focuses on the sexual nature of juveniles, not the purported focus on nudism. My conclusions are based on these observations:

The magazine title focuses on youth. Five of the magazines depict children on the cover; the sixth magazine depicts a child and an adult.

Four of the six magazines depict a centerfold type, pictorial article. In each of the four issues, the centerfold is clearly a juvenile.

The magazines consistently feature children in sexually suggestive (although not lewd or sexually explicit) positions.

The vast majority of the photo frames or subjects depicted are juveniles.

The printed material is in German. Some of the printed material has been translated. In each translation, the printed word is marginally related to the photos. The reader gets the impression that the printed material is uninformed, redundant, and merely takes up space.

This material is thinly veiled as appealing to the true nudist; when it is really erotica for pedophiles.

Here's what I would suggest to minimize these types of situations:

Continue to educate nudists.

Nudist adults should prohibit other nudists from photographing their children.

At the very least, nudists should sternly warn their kids not to have photos taken without mom or dad, or a legal guardian present--ever! There should be no exceptions.

Or better yet, prohibit photography of non-family members at nudist sites altogether. Why take pictures anyway, except with immediate family members?

If photos are ever taken without parental consent, there may be both criminal and civil recourse, depending on the laws in your state.

If a child is sexually abused in connection with a church-sponsored activity, the church could be sued in the courts for "negligence" because it failed to start programs for the prevention of sexual abuse of children. Some insurance companies are responding by dropping protections for churches. Nudist facilities could be susceptible to the same lawsuits if children were sexually exploited as a result of camp negligence. [Other legal experts concur with this.--ed.]

Encourage parents to sue nudist/naturist photographers, camps, and the various organizations, including the A.S.A. and the Naturist Society who allow these photographers to operate under their auspices.